That's what could actually happen. SSN without the lunchers at mid section but they keep the front one 16 lunchers which is the basic configuration for russian big ships. The size would be reduce so it would be smaller than any previous soviet sub which would be cheaper to operate and easier and faster to produce.

I expect them to be fir submarine forces what Gordhkov is suppose to be for surface forces and Yassen would be the bigger ship but in lower number.

They have to replace in the long term akulas, Victors and Sierras. So they will probably order 20 of them in all.

I think the submarine with 20% of missiles in the nose, and 80% of missiles in the middle section doesn't make sense.

It is cheaper to put the missiles into the middle section if it is there anyway.

Two explanation for this:1. the artist was lazy ( considering the conning tower has edges it can be an explanation ) 2. They will build the nose section independently, and they will marry it to random middle sections .

I think the submarine with 20% of missiles in the nose, and 80% of missiles in the middle section doesn't make sense.

It is cheaper to put the missiles into the middle section if it is there anyway.

Two explanation for this:1. the artist was lazy ( considering the conning tower has edges it can be an explanation ) 2. They will build the nose section independently, and they will marry it to random middle sections .

And yes, it's middle section that will be different between variants, front and rear will be identical

This way they could buld different submarine types by simply selecting different middle section: VLS one like here for SSGN, large ballistics missile launchers for SSBN, mini-sub bank for spy version or just not install middle section at all if they want stock SSN like old Akula

Each version will have good basic weapon package thanks to both torpedo tubes and VLS cells in the front

I think the layout is quite sensible.... if you have a look at the front setup... remember the torpedos and torpedo tubes are now in the middle of the vessel, so in the nose you would have a large round sonar array in the nose and then behind that you would have flank arrays on each side... which leaves the middle empty... putting two UKSK launchers there makes a lot of sense because except during launch a UKSK launch bin wont make any noise to effect the arrays.

With 16 missiles up front you effectively have an SSN... not enough to call it an SSGN but able to be equipped with a variety of missiles to allow a variety of missions that makes it flexible and capable.

With a rear section that can either take a single row of SSBNs... ie 8... in other words half the payload of a current Borei then you can have an SSBN that has space either side of the SLBMs for torpedos and torpedo tubes to make it a normal sub.... or you could have more UKSK launch bins there to make it a viable SSGN with the potential for a large missile attack on any particular target.... plus torpedo tubes either side.

That offers the same design for three different weapon setups.

The SSN could be shorter with the torpedo tubes on the outside and where the SSBN and the SSGN have vertical launch tubes down the middle the SSN can store its torpedos and missiles for launching through the torpedo tubes...

Dare I suggest that the central module could also accept a specialized bay for storage and launch of "Status 6" or "Kanyon" for whatever the intercontinental robot torpedo uber-nuke is called?

Exactly... and it could also be used for special modules for underwater "research"... and a range of other purposes... including divers and special forces delivery and extraction... hell it could be used to sail into dangerous waters and release and recover UAVs that are vertical takeoff... all of sudden a UAV appears and then collects data and maybe even hangs around to record an attack to determine if a follow up attack is needed and then leaves in an unexpected direction and then disappears.

UAVs might be expendable but they are not cheap so being able to recover them makes them more valuable... but flying them from Russia would take time and be noticed... so hidden platforms moving bases in international waters is useful.

I do however suspect that if this Kanyon system is intercontinental then there is no huge advantage to taking it away from Russia for launch... though I suppose that would eliminate NATOs chances of intercepting it no matter which path it takes from Russia...

With a rear section that can either take a single row of SSBNs... ie 8... in other words half the payload of a current Borei then you can have an SSBN that has space either side of the SLBMs for torpedos and torpedo tubes to make it a normal sub.... or you could have more UKSK launch bins there to make it a viable SSGN with the potential for a large missile attack on any particular target.... plus torpedo tubes either side.

Or they could be made for 8 Bulava that can also accomodate with VLS specialy made to fit inside if you want to use cruise missiles. You know normal bay is for bulava but the missile could be taken off and replaced by a luncher with cruise missile very quickly at the port.

I don't think they'll keep torpedos in the middle. Wiki article on Yasen suggests they'll move them back in the bow on Husky. Also in the picture there are no torpedo hatches in the middle.

Well to be honest having the torpedo tubes up nearer the front would be better as flank arrays on each side of the nose would be limited in size and could be effected by the nose mounted spherical array... so putting torpedo tubes on either side of the UKSK launcher at the front would make sense just fine.

That would free up the sides of the vessel for enormous flank arrays... or if needed... potentially more UKSK launchers for the SSGN version...

About Husky SSBN version: if they build one it will be carrying way more than 8 SLBMs

Why?

Making it smaller and cheaper makes more sense than having all your eggs in one basket...

Reducing the number of onboard missiles means more targets for the US to find and also it means once it starts firing it will take less time to launch all its missiles.

From a practical point of view its MARV warheads can only engage targets on its flight path... in other words having 6 warheads on one missile means all six targets it is aimed at need to be all in the same direction from the boat that launches it... so having more boats means you can distribute the launch position to more places and hit more widely separated targets without having to split the launch into multiple volleys from different places...

There are no reasons to go with anything less than 16, this thing is big enough to haul as many

Why stop at 16? Why not put 128 missiles on a big super tanker sized barge? but it would be harder to hide and easier to find and engage... so which would be better... 8 Boreis, or 16 smaller newer Huskies? But then of course it will actually be more like 32 Huskies because half will be SSBNs and the other half will be SSGNs or SSNs... which one is which? Needle in a haystack of needles?

Any rationale behind prioritizing flank sonars over bow spherical arrays? Using common sense, submarine should know what's in front of her as soon as possible, prior to everything else.

Regarding ballistic missiles, you are right to say that spreading them accross several boats makes sense, that's why Borei A has 16 Bulavas and not 20. Nonetheless, there's also an argument in favor of larger ships. Americans put 24 Tridents on Ohio because of economies of scale. It's cheaper to build 14 larger boats than 15 small, because few extra meters of steel don't really add to the costs (120 m Yasen is twice more expensive than 170 m Borei). And Russia should be even more aware of this as their US counterparts, having 10 % of their defense budget (and falling).

Their long and ragged coastline makes perfect sense for having large fleet of corvettes and frigates instead of fewer larger ships. But the same logic doesn't really apply to the submarines - that's why historically both superpowers had roughly the some number of submarines and missiles.

Any rationale behind prioritizing flank sonars over bow spherical arrays? Using common sense, submarine should know what's in front of her as soon as possible, prior to everything else.

Regarding ballistic missiles, you are right to say that spreading them accross several boats makes sense, that's why Borei A has 16 Bulavas and not 20. Nonetheless, there's also an argument in favor of larger ships. Americans put 24 Tridents on Ohio because of economies of scale. It's cheaper to build 14 larger boats than 15 small, because few extra meters of steel don't really add to the costs (120 m Yasen is twice more expensive than 170 m Borei). And Russia should be even more aware of this than their US counterparts, having 10 % of their defense budget (and falling).

Their long and ragged coastline makes perfect sense for having large fleet of corvettes and frigates instead of fewer larger ships. But the same logic doesn't really apply to the submarines - that's why historically both superpowers had roughly the some number of SSBNs.

verkhoturye51 wrote:Any rationale behind prioritizing flank sonars over bow spherical arrays? Using common sense, submarine should know what's in front of her as soon as possible, prior to everything else.

Towed/flank sonars are the main tools to found other submarines, the spherical sonar good for communication / found noisy targets like ships.

But by design the spherical/cylindrical sonar is not good to found low noise targets.

Flank arrays can be enormous... which gives them rather better long range performance than a spherical array for quiet targets especially at longer range.

Regarding ballistic missiles, you are right to say that spreading them accross several boats makes sense, that's why Borei A has 16 Bulavas and not 20. Nonetheless, there's also an argument in favor of larger ships.

But then the Akula class had only 20 missiles yet had 10 warheads per missile... meaning 200 targets per boat could be engaged, while the Trident with 24 missiles with only 8 warheads could only engage 192.

Yes, I know the Akula is much bigger than the US boat, but that was so it could operate through the ice in the north pole, which is also why the conning tower on the Akula looks so different to other Soviet subs.

I remember in the early 1990s there were even suggestions to make all new Russian subs carry two SLBMs, so every Russian sub would be a boomer... and also an SSN or SSGN... but I think they realised the complication that would create where an SSN chasing down a target then stops because it just received orders to launch its SLBMs... except its current location means its targets are out of range...

The simple fact is that making all new Russian subs of one design (ie Husky) with minor variations in equipment and weapons makes sense and should help control costs without compromising performance too much...

Having corvettes and frigates is nice but it is like having MANPADS and short range SAMs like TOR and OSA... with heavy coverage you will get rather good defence, but you will only ever be shooting down weapons and most of the time not shooting down weapons platforms... which means you will continue to shoot down missiles until you run out of missiles. If you could knock down their platforms there would be less missiles to deal with and they will actually pay a real penalty for their attack... which might deter the attack in the first place.

For the armement it is written that it can lunch zirkon, kalibr and Iskander !! A big news it means it could be used as a SSBN if iskander has nuk warehead. It would change dramatically the power of russian submarine force.